Electronic nose analysis of Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.) grape and wine volatile differences during cold soak and postfermentation

Denise M. Gardner, Bruce W. Zoecklein, Kumar Mallikarjunan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Cold soak is a prefermentation maceration process at cold temperatures, traditionally used to enhance red wine color. This study monitored changes in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon volatiles using a commercial conducting polymer electronic nose (ENose) during a five-day cold soak and postfermentation. Principal component analysis (PCA) of juice volatiles detected by the ENose during cold soak showed PC1 accounted for 95.7% of the variation. Various volatile associations were made with specific ENose sensors. In comparison, PCA of must chemistries had 52.4% of the variation accounted for by PC1. The PCA of wine volatiles detected by GC-MS showed PC1 accounted for 97.1% of the variation between control and cold soak treatment, where control wine volatiles were associated with several ethyl esters, while cold soak wine volatiles were associated with diethyl succinate, isovaleric acid, benzyl alcohol, 3-methyl butanol, cis-3-hexenol, γ-nonalactone, benzaldehyde, 2-methyl propanol, phenethyl acetate, 1-octanol, β-damascenone, terpinene-4-ol, γ-butyrolactone, ethyl acetate, hexanoic acid, citronellol, phenethyl alcohol, and n-butanol. Comparatively, PC1 accounted for 100% of the total variance when using the ENose to measure volatile composition. Sensory evaluation did not demonstrate significant differences in aroma between control and cold soak wines. This study demonstrates differences in volatile chemistry between control and cold soak wines, as well as the ability to use a conducting polymer ENose as a simple tool for analysis of volatiles.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)81-90
Number of pages10
JournalAmerican Journal of Enology and Viticulture
Volume62
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2011

Fingerprint

Electronic Nose
electronic nose
Vitis
Wine
Vitis vinifera
wines
grapes
Principal Component Analysis
principal component analysis
butanol
polymers
chemistry
Polymers
1-propanol
citronellol
benzyl alcohol
octanol
hexanoic acid
4-Butyrolactone
Phenylethyl Alcohol

Keywords

  • Aroma
  • Cabernet Sauvignon
  • Cold soak
  • Electronic nose (ENose)
  • Glycosides
  • Volatiles

Cite this

Electronic nose analysis of Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.) grape and wine volatile differences during cold soak and postfermentation. / Gardner, Denise M.; Zoecklein, Bruce W.; Mallikarjunan, Kumar.

In: American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, Vol. 62, No. 1, 01.03.2011, p. 81-90.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1c612d8007704bf0b8d9e27ad70b79ff,
title = "Electronic nose analysis of Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.) grape and wine volatile differences during cold soak and postfermentation",
abstract = "Cold soak is a prefermentation maceration process at cold temperatures, traditionally used to enhance red wine color. This study monitored changes in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon volatiles using a commercial conducting polymer electronic nose (ENose) during a five-day cold soak and postfermentation. Principal component analysis (PCA) of juice volatiles detected by the ENose during cold soak showed PC1 accounted for 95.7{\%} of the variation. Various volatile associations were made with specific ENose sensors. In comparison, PCA of must chemistries had 52.4{\%} of the variation accounted for by PC1. The PCA of wine volatiles detected by GC-MS showed PC1 accounted for 97.1{\%} of the variation between control and cold soak treatment, where control wine volatiles were associated with several ethyl esters, while cold soak wine volatiles were associated with diethyl succinate, isovaleric acid, benzyl alcohol, 3-methyl butanol, cis-3-hexenol, γ-nonalactone, benzaldehyde, 2-methyl propanol, phenethyl acetate, 1-octanol, β-damascenone, terpinene-4-ol, γ-butyrolactone, ethyl acetate, hexanoic acid, citronellol, phenethyl alcohol, and n-butanol. Comparatively, PC1 accounted for 100{\%} of the total variance when using the ENose to measure volatile composition. Sensory evaluation did not demonstrate significant differences in aroma between control and cold soak wines. This study demonstrates differences in volatile chemistry between control and cold soak wines, as well as the ability to use a conducting polymer ENose as a simple tool for analysis of volatiles.",
keywords = "Aroma, Cabernet Sauvignon, Cold soak, Electronic nose (ENose), Glycosides, Volatiles",
author = "Gardner, {Denise M.} and Zoecklein, {Bruce W.} and Kumar Mallikarjunan",
year = "2011",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5344/ajev.2010.09117",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "81--90",
journal = "American Journal of Enology and Viticulture",
issn = "0002-9254",
publisher = "American Society for Enology and Viticulture",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Electronic nose analysis of Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.) grape and wine volatile differences during cold soak and postfermentation

AU - Gardner, Denise M.

AU - Zoecklein, Bruce W.

AU - Mallikarjunan, Kumar

PY - 2011/3/1

Y1 - 2011/3/1

N2 - Cold soak is a prefermentation maceration process at cold temperatures, traditionally used to enhance red wine color. This study monitored changes in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon volatiles using a commercial conducting polymer electronic nose (ENose) during a five-day cold soak and postfermentation. Principal component analysis (PCA) of juice volatiles detected by the ENose during cold soak showed PC1 accounted for 95.7% of the variation. Various volatile associations were made with specific ENose sensors. In comparison, PCA of must chemistries had 52.4% of the variation accounted for by PC1. The PCA of wine volatiles detected by GC-MS showed PC1 accounted for 97.1% of the variation between control and cold soak treatment, where control wine volatiles were associated with several ethyl esters, while cold soak wine volatiles were associated with diethyl succinate, isovaleric acid, benzyl alcohol, 3-methyl butanol, cis-3-hexenol, γ-nonalactone, benzaldehyde, 2-methyl propanol, phenethyl acetate, 1-octanol, β-damascenone, terpinene-4-ol, γ-butyrolactone, ethyl acetate, hexanoic acid, citronellol, phenethyl alcohol, and n-butanol. Comparatively, PC1 accounted for 100% of the total variance when using the ENose to measure volatile composition. Sensory evaluation did not demonstrate significant differences in aroma between control and cold soak wines. This study demonstrates differences in volatile chemistry between control and cold soak wines, as well as the ability to use a conducting polymer ENose as a simple tool for analysis of volatiles.

AB - Cold soak is a prefermentation maceration process at cold temperatures, traditionally used to enhance red wine color. This study monitored changes in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon volatiles using a commercial conducting polymer electronic nose (ENose) during a five-day cold soak and postfermentation. Principal component analysis (PCA) of juice volatiles detected by the ENose during cold soak showed PC1 accounted for 95.7% of the variation. Various volatile associations were made with specific ENose sensors. In comparison, PCA of must chemistries had 52.4% of the variation accounted for by PC1. The PCA of wine volatiles detected by GC-MS showed PC1 accounted for 97.1% of the variation between control and cold soak treatment, where control wine volatiles were associated with several ethyl esters, while cold soak wine volatiles were associated with diethyl succinate, isovaleric acid, benzyl alcohol, 3-methyl butanol, cis-3-hexenol, γ-nonalactone, benzaldehyde, 2-methyl propanol, phenethyl acetate, 1-octanol, β-damascenone, terpinene-4-ol, γ-butyrolactone, ethyl acetate, hexanoic acid, citronellol, phenethyl alcohol, and n-butanol. Comparatively, PC1 accounted for 100% of the total variance when using the ENose to measure volatile composition. Sensory evaluation did not demonstrate significant differences in aroma between control and cold soak wines. This study demonstrates differences in volatile chemistry between control and cold soak wines, as well as the ability to use a conducting polymer ENose as a simple tool for analysis of volatiles.

KW - Aroma

KW - Cabernet Sauvignon

KW - Cold soak

KW - Electronic nose (ENose)

KW - Glycosides

KW - Volatiles

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952308572&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952308572&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5344/ajev.2010.09117

DO - 10.5344/ajev.2010.09117

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79952308572

VL - 62

SP - 81

EP - 90

JO - American Journal of Enology and Viticulture

JF - American Journal of Enology and Viticulture

SN - 0002-9254

IS - 1

ER -